Are we living now in a Post-Moral age?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

Are we living now in a Post-Moral age? With the new ethics of big business and a capitalistic mindset, have we moved past our need for an altruistic Morality? Have we reverted back to just following laws that are enforced, while trying to get away with as much illicitly as possible? Did we ever truly have a Moral awakening? Have the messages of “Kindness too all for its own sake”, taught by the Buddha, Jesus, Zarathustra, Lao Tzu, and others just an admiral relic of our past.

If you look at some of the old religions (example, early Judaism) a righteous person was one who followed the cannon of the Law, which was not necessary always doing what is right, in “an objective moral sense” (i.e. Jihad - Religious wars). The Hebrew concern was for obedience to God’s commands and meticulous observance of his laws. The early books of the Bible do not concern themselves with moral choices and leading a morally good life. This message came later, an awakening so to speak and a changing in God’s message to his people.

Have we moved past that message, reverted or evolved our ideological need of altruistic Morality. Has society devalued the meaning of the word Moral, as all people believe themselves to be morally right in all there actions no matter what they might be.

Living in times that have lost their cultural momentum is not easy. The force of tradition withers and now any individual’s conception of truth is accounted as valid as any other’s. “When people stop believing in Christ, they don’t believe in nothing, they’ll believe in anything”, said G.K. Chesterton. With the increase in interest in New Age spirituality, old fashioned magic, and dangerous religious cults (i.e. anything that is fundamental and thinks it’s doing Gods work when killing people). Has our society started to spin out of control, losing its centre? To me personally I see our society increasing its Technological aspect while losing touch with its culture. As a Global World we’re starting to see the signs of weakening in, group identity, with the blurring of cultural walls (the westernisation of the global world). While this isn’t necessarily a bad thing it can cause people to over react in an attempt to retain their self-identity (i.e. the current wave of terrorism stemming from the perceived threat to local control and lashing out under the guise of religion).

Is the instability of Morality caused by the unstable world, or is the unstable world caused by the instability of Morality? If you ask me I think we’re on the verge of a new world religion being born or maybe more accurately put: The reinvention and interpretation of the classical Moral messages.

2

My personal view is that the growing apathetic attitude towards religion has meant there has been a growing apathy toward morality as well. My view is that there has to be a growing movement pushing for absolute atheism, to destroy religion once and for all.

But hand in hand with this we have to find a way to demonstrate that there is still a reason to act as a moral agent in all situations, a new movement is needed, set up in a quasi-religious way, that actively seeks to convert people to atheism, but at the same time teaching them the worth of human life and the reasons for adopting morality. The truth is people need a belief system, and in adopting an apathetic attitude towards their religion they lose any of the good it actually gave them, an easily recognised moral system. Now people believe they can pick and cjhoose with their religious beliefs they believe they can pick and choose which bits to ignore too. Every single Catholic in England I have ever met all break the canons of Catholicism, apart from one, and he was a real exception.

Thus I agree with you Pax, but I see a path that leads back to salvation, it is just that someone needs to start that movement of moral atheism, but that person has to realise and recognise that the majority of people won’t understand completely the concepts explained to them and thus will have to be introduced to them in a quasi-religious manner. I don’t think I’m up to it, it all depends if there’s someone out there who is.

3

Reply to Pax Vitae

Morals are individualistic, although a society holds some moral concepts in common. Moral concepts are an aspect of personality that is in part inherited. Other moral concepts are instilled during childhood. It is rare that an adult shifts their moral stance, but often we don’t know what their moral stance is. What they say is not a reliable indicator.

A morals like personality become evident as circumstances (stresses) vary. We may be surprized by a person’s choices when tempted. The operator’s at Enron spoke morality, but when the opportunity presented itself they acted on greed. Human history shows that human nature has not changed much over the years. People can and do rationalize anything when it is to their advantage.

The key in the moral equation: “upbringing + heritage = morals” is upbringing. If we don’t get them while they are young its too late. Preaching to adults is quite ineffective. A young child benefits from a mother’s presence to learn how to behave with others. As they mature they respond to the model of the same sex parent. The problem in upbringing is that moral instruction and role modeling are often inadaquate or absent. In the resulting vacuum the child learns morals on their own with haphazard results.

4

heh i wish we were, but we aint. but i would definatley agree that society as a whole is not as “moral” as it used to be.

5

Reply to Pax Vitae: spiritual understanding failed to keep up with scientific and economic revolution:

When TIME Magazine released its watershed “Is God Dead?” cover in 1966 to cover the mass falling away from organized religion, it may have been philosophy that was meeting death. By the mid-1960s philosophy and ideology were reaching a relativist and existentialist conclusion which was wallowing itself away from relevance (if nothing matters and everything is a matter of subjective opinion, why should I listen to what philosophers have to say?).

The twentieth century- at first unprecedented slaughter in the Somme, Verdun, and other World War 1 battlefields, but eventually in the forms of Hitler, Stalin and Mao- came from an era that was the pinnacle of politics and philosophy. Such blind nationalism and materialism followed the writings of the great relativists Einstein, naturalists Darwin, and thinkers Nietzsche. The change in Western thought began in the Enlightenment as a result of a century of genius and reaction to religious violence. It ended not in Jeffersonian triumph and dignity but a Napoleonic-style debacle. The early philosophers could be salvaged- J.S. Mill, John Locke- our law rests on them.

But their inevitable successors, beginning with Marx and ending with Mao, could not. Those who carried rationalism and progressivism to their extremes discovered that without the God whom they had killed, the murder of millions became justified… It was Germany, the most civilized of European nations, and whose triumph and then terror mirrored the whole continent. The West was left with neither religion nor ideology. For the latter had distracted the former while science dealt Him a devastating blow. What’s left is the post-modern world, which expresses its morality through moderation rather than romanticism.

The American Revolution enshrines “the pursuit of happiness…” but what form has this pursuit taken? Communism and fascism have fallen by the wayside against democracy-capitalism, but fascism sought only glory while communism and democracy-capitalism competed based on which could provide the most material gains. These desires have existed for as long as man himself, but, with the exception of more metaphysical consistency, do they not represent a regression over the religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam?

6

Reply to Beet Juice: I can’t answer your question without knowing what “regression over the religions” means.

7

f7,

Baser. Less depth, less richness, less complexity, less lively.

8

When we inoculate children against ignorance, laziness, and immaturity, it is to their own advantage, but is innoculating them against immorality to their advantage? One day the child understand what is meant by “only the good die young”.

9

Reply to Beet Juice

Your question: “These desires [pursuit of happiness] have existed for as long as man himself, but, with the exception of more metaphysical consistency, do they not represent a regression over the religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam?” is hard to parse. How is “more metaphysical consistency” an exception to the pursuit of happiness? Are you asking: “… do they [pursuit of happiness?] not represent [something Baser, Less depth, less richness, less complexity, less lively than] the religions Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity and Islam?”
Even with my edits I can’t make sense of it.

10

Reply to Beet Juice

You ask: “When we inoculate children against ignorance, laziness, and immaturity, it is to their own advantage, but is innoculating them against immorality to their advantage?” Assuming it is possible to inoculate children against ignorance, laziness, and immaturity, then I suppose it is to their advantage. Do you doubt it? I have no idea what you are getting at when you say: "One day the child understand what is meant by “only the good die young”.

11

While I agree with you, I don’t think this is possible, because situations can reach a point where there’s more to be gained from the immoral act then morality its self. I believe that, what influences people’s motives (either consciously or unconsciously) is the Will to Power or Increased Person Status and Influence. Meaning when dealing with money everybody wants more. I’ve met quite a number of rich people while I was working in the banking sector, but I never came across anyone who felt they had to much money. They all had a longing for more, and it wasn’t a sense of greediness. Or the power and status that is acquired when elected into public office. The first thing these officials think about is how am I going to be re-elected, this then influences all the choices they make while in control of power.

So, it seems to me that the “act of faith” that once was given to religions now needs to be given to Goodness and Morality, but the promises of eternal life must be removed. Yet morality without eternal life doesn’t seem like a good deal to most people.

For me Morality takes two forms:* Core/Universal Moral Values

  • Ethnic Group Moral Values

The first is the morality that all peoples would be able to agree on. They are the core values of all moral systems that exist. Things like: You shouldn’t steal, shouldn’t kill, or do to others, as you would have them do to you. Confucius, Rabbi Hillel, Jesus, Islam, Jainism, Buddhism, and Hinduism have these as part of their cannon. They are the elemental teachings inherent in all Moral systems.

While the second is based off local cultural influences, codes of morality that are considered moral in this ethnic group, but would be immoral to another. Things like: Sex out side of Marriage, Abortion, and Capital Punishment just to name a few. These are the moral ideas that cause all the problems in the world. They are the parts of world religion that divide the world. These are also the moral values, which I believe, can never have a universal answer and so will always be a contentious issue.

Personally, we should not divide the world up by countries, but by Moral Codes. While this could never happen I think it’s the only way to solve the problem of cultural infighting over moral issues. If you don’t like the moral code of where you’re currently living, then move to a place where the moral system matches your own beliefs.

I agree. That’s what I’ve come to believe, society has moved “beyond good and evil”, as Nietzsche once said, in the search of personal power. His philosophies are basically what’s called the “Rat Race”. They don’t bring personal happiness for those who don’t or can’t win, as only the victors see glory.

It seems that morality has been used to keep people in their place, tie them in moral chains. While the rich and influential ignore morality as much as needed, while never going to far over the line. “Always be seen to be moral, yet do good as much as is required and evil only when necessary,” Machiavelli. That to me is the real moral code of the world, a pragmatic morality.

Which brings me to believe, with the death of religion we’ll also see the death of Altruistic Morality. As no code of altruistic morality can be based off a philosophy of “Realism”, it needs a spiritual dimension to give it weight. Yet apart of me what’s to believe that if all people could put their fate into the hands of Altruistic Morality the world would become a better place, but this would require us to fight our own nature and transcend it, to become better then what our current nature will allow. This is what I mean by putting our Faith in Morality.

12

— Have we really come this far since the “Great leap of being”(Historian Erik Voegelin. Karl Jaspers refers to this as the axial period.) of about 500 BCE?
which included:
• Buddha
• Lao Tse
• Heraclitus
• Confucious
• Zarathustra

— It seems to me that religion is not quite dead. I would like, however, to thank the dying religions. Out of their decay shall come the fertility of a new day. We already owe the “love of wisdom” to the almost late religions, perhaps one day they shall provide the top soil for the fairest plant that has ever stretched its flowers toward the ever-present sun.
— Matt. Didn’t Herman Hesse allude to atheistic monasteries in the Glass Bead Game? I see something along those lines as a possibility. Atheists need to come out of the closet. Atheists in America are starting to grow in numbers and i see more secular organizations than ever before.
— Is it possible to do any better than humanism at this point? Religion’s greatest lesson was love, my most fervent prayer is that we never forget that lesson, i welcome humanism, wherever it be found.
— Also! Philosophy has still not emancipated itself from religion. Recall that a lot of philosophers were the sons of ministers (i here mention only Hegel and Nietzsche), furthermore, some have been nothing but the puppets of religion or state (descartes, Heidegger, and again Hegel). One of philosophie’s greatest lessons has been freedom; let it heed that lesson!
— I personally deplore attempts to make Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche out to be affilated with the Nazis. Anyone who thinks otherwise should take the time to read what he wrote and not rely on hearsay and what some people have to say about him (For example, what Bertrand Russell has to say about him in his A History Of Western Philosophy is simply unforgivable in an otherwise amiable man). I have read all of Nietzsche’s published works and notebooks numerous times.
1.) The nazi party was not even in existence while he was alive.
2.) Nietzsche wrote scathing remarks about the Germans and anti-semites in particular. While it is true that Nietzsche attacked religion (including Judaism and Christianity), he rarely used his polemics against the Jewish people, on the contrary, he calls Jesus “The noblest man”, Spinoza he refers to as, “The purest sage”.
3.) Nietzsche spent most of his adult life outside of Germany
4.) Nietzsche broke with the composer Richard Wagner in part due to his anti-semitism. Nietzsche also refused to attend his sister’s wedding to a notorious anti-semite.
5.) Nietzsche’s sister (who was an anti-semite) became his literary executor. It is she who twisted his writings so that they could be abused by the nazi’s.

We all take note of the centrifugal tendencies in our society. Perhaps as Nietzsche said civilization and culture are at odds, perhaps we are changing too rapidly to attain any momentum.

13

Reply to Pax Vitae

First I want to comment on your response to Matt:
I find it difficult to impossible to analyze an individual’s reaction to a moral dilemma. We can’t get inside someone’s head to know what they are thinking. We use logic to analyze the circumstances of the dilemma while an individual’s decision may hinge on emotions of which the individual may only be subliminally aware.

You mention: ” 1. Core/Universal Moral Values. 2. Ethnic Group Moral Values.” and then define and discuss them. From my point of view (indicated above) it is not possible to gain insight into morality from such an analysis. Such an analysis may however be useful in comparing and characterizing societies. Morality is so highly individualistic and dependent upon circumstances that an example consisting one individual’s moral choices defies analysis. Say that to your philosophy professor and you may fail the course. Behavior of societies can be analyzed statistically from large samplings of data. I prefer to divide a discussion of morality into: 1. The Law, and 2. The Raising of Children. These topics are much more amenable to analysis and objective study.

Moral Codes is a problematic subject because morals are essentially individualistic. Despite what an individual says, when push comes to shove, they may or may not behave according to a moral code. Labeling an individual as “moral” or “immoral” is likewise an individualistic evaluation that is equally problematic for predicting that individual’s behavior. Despite what is said, there is honor amongst thieves – just don’t count on it.

In your response to Beet Juice you said ”Which brings me to believe, with the death of religion we’ll also see the death of Altruistic Morality.” That statement needs to be backed up with data, but I can’t imagine data that reliably couples religious teaching with altruism.

14

Sorry I meant materialism is a regression over religion. The only advantage amoral materialism has over religion is that doesn’t seem to require faith in an actual physical God.

15

I agreed that rearing them from ignorance, laziness and immaturity is to the child’s advantage, but is raising a child against immorality to his or her advantage? There may come a time where it is in their interest to throw aside moral inhibitions.

16

Reply to Beet Juice

You said: “I agreed that rearing them from ignorance, laziness and immaturity is to the child’s advantage, but is raising a child against immorality to his or her advantage? There may come a time where it is in their interest to throw aside moral inhibitions.” You write in a kind of short hand that I don’t understand. I can’t imagine what you mean by “raising a child against immorality”.

You said: “Sorry I meant materialism is a regression over religion. The only advantage amoral materialism has over religion is that doesn’t seem to require faith in an actual physical God.” I don’t believe in “amoral materialism”. In my view morals are individualistic, and each child acquires a set of morals adapted to their evironment. Sometimes that set of morals is distinctly anti social.

17

I mean that teaching them certain things are wrong, and you just do them, like lying, stealing, and killing, and that everyone should act with justice towards others.

Are religious morals social or individual? I mean religious morals that, for example, are written down in a book like the Bible that claims that a certain set of values applies to all people.

18

Reply to Beet Juice

You said: “I mean that teaching them certain things are wrong, and you just do them, like lying, stealing, and killing, and that everyone should act with justice towards others.” I am sorry. I just don’t get the point of what you say here.

You asked: “Are religious morals social or individual? I mean religious morals that, for example, are written down in a book like the Bible that claims that a certain set of values applies to all people.” All morals are social, and every individual obeys their own individual set of morals. An individual acquires morals from various sources. Some from religious teachings. Mother’s whether religious or not teach their children to respect others and their property, to obey the law, etc. When morals conflict it is up to the individual to ask what to do, or just decide for themselves. It sometimes happens that a child gets no moral instruction at all so we can’t predict what individual morals they will adopt or where they may learn them.

19

Marshell McDaniel

I totally agree and in response to Pax Vitae i hope you will hear me out (i have a tendency to assume to much :slight_smile: ). Schopenhauer wrote the philosophy of the “will,” urging awake a force to life in each person that aims toward a refinement of the human being and a focusing of ambition toward life and desire for existence. Nietzsche’s “Will to Power” is a technical restatement of this to clarify that while the will is indeed all, presupposing a lack of external world that may resist your will is ignorant. Nietzsche rightfully brushes aside the trivial question of “Is reality real?” by suggesting that a system of consistent reactions and structure will always be “real” in that it has effected us, and our interaction with it affects our survival which in turn is important to the system. He rails against contentment and moral dogma, and suggests the evolution of humans to übermensch status - people fully accepting the nihilism of life and moving forward to embrace what design, evolution and passion have to offer.

This cuts aside much of the guilt and ineffective action of the world voting public. Someone told to save the planet will naturally join an organization for saving baby seals that mails stamps around the world to collect donations, but will not be able to tell you a single action except “drastic change” that would actually solve the problem. A postmoral person will correctly respond that most sufferings are tied to a few central problems, and that the largest is general disregard for the environment. The übermensch that Nietzsche wrote of could arise, but by the suffocating nature of a media-fed democracy will be an extremist; after that, the next generation is to be a lone wolf for forms of radical change through thought.

Instead a anti-christian, nazi morality or any extreme right/left i could see a future moving a different way:

Nihilism - from Buddhism and Western thought, the idea that nothing has any significance or value inherently, only by the valuation of a human mind. Also: that death is very real, there are no pleasant illusions like heaven or compassionate capitalism, etc.
Ethnic pride - from Latin America to the Nordics to the American Indians to Malaysians to Chinese to Hispanics worldwide, metallions are of different backgrounds and each more proud of their respective backgrounds than interested in selling out the same for profit.
Environmentalism - a great horror of humanity is the destruction of earth and anti-corporatism and environmentalism are part of this.
Melodic poesy - the sense of melody and layering of the same as central to any complexity in composition, developed further toward a language in which uniqueness is appreciated over novelty of form.(This is anti-Hegelianism (naturalism.))
Anti-moralism - a fear and resentment of morality as a construct at all, preferring nihilistic and dentological moralities.
Honor - personal pride and passion for personal value in existence will be seen as more important than social approbation.

Its like were beginning some artificial Hegelianism of the current time were civilization re-learns its values after absorbing technocracy. social pressures to convince individuals to work collectively and achieve the efficiency benefits of mass production, this step moves human beyond its first precept: coercion. Its all pretty and sweet but slavery prevails with more mind-controlling implications (as ive mentioned before.) A lack of collective action because of our resentment at coercion, (or in an adolescent rebelling against a parent) there is love and the uncertainty of a known past versus and unknown future, as well as a desire to acquire and define an existence for oneself. All past cultures are dead in this existential void of late modernism; the growth of individuals and society from a period of adolescence is represented by aestheticism to an adulthood of literalist yet design-oriented noble culture.

Look at the last-stand of religion: . Bush who represents it, the new conservative but liberal religious right, which is based on a single issue “moralism” passing for politics and decisionmaking that doent work; in the meantime, Europe and Asia are slowly waking up to the fact that American-style democracy and entertainment produce a completely degenerate empire, and subtle cultural sanctions against Americans has began.

20

— Wow Kesh! That was a great post!
— Morality a social phenomena, and yet i find few who share my morality. The Southern USA is very religious.
— The notion of tolerance has recently been advocated in the USA as a kind of glue to hold together the atomistic individualism that is our legacy,
and yet, tolerance is a self defeating doctrine in the sense that if you espouse it, you necessarily tolerate people who don’t believe in tolerance.
Maybe lies, dissimulations, and masks (as Ibsen and Nietzsche saw) are a necessary part of a cultural ethos, and survival. We have killed the oldest, best, and noblest lies, we may yet perish due to our quest for truth.
— Pax Vitae. I disagree that altruism requires the crutch of religion to support it. There are numerous cases in nature of animals helping, aiding, and assisting one another in spite of their life being put in jeopardy. If animals, (who pass down little information from generation to generation) are capable of this, how much more so are we? We have been out of the Sun, shaded under the auspices of religion for so long, that we now think spirituality ( i define that here as the notion that all men are brothers, that i am one with the universe, in the words of Krishnamurti, “I am the World, the World is me”) will cease to be once we have left the cool alcove of religion to gambol out in the hot sun. My friends, that is precisely where one needs one’s spirituality most!